The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age

The digital revolution made it simple to digitize and share media; the 3D …

The Penrose Triangle is as elegant as it is impossible—much like M.C. Escher’s drawings, it presents a two-dimensional illusion that the eye interprets as three-dimensional. The task of effectively creating this illusion in three dimensions, without resorting to hidden openings or gimmicky twists, seemed daunting until a Netherlands-based designer named Ulrich Schwanitz succeeded in printing the object recently. But Schwanitz, who posted a YouTube video of his design achievement in action, wouldn’t share his secret with the world. Instead, he made his “impossible triangle” available for purchase through Shapeways, a company that fabricates custom 3D designs, for $70.

Within weeks of Schwanitz’s “discovery,” however, a 3D modeler (and former Shapeways intern) named Artur Tchoukanov watched the video and figured out how to recreate the shape. He then uploaded instructions to Thingiverse, an open-source repository of 3D models and content. BoingBoing picked up the story (well, part of it), and “wrongly” credited Tchoukanov as the initial creator of the object.

The same day the story ran, Schwanitz sent Thingiverse a DMCA takedown notice and demanded that the site remove Tchoukanov’s design (and a related one) because it allegedly infringed Schwanitz’s copyright. Although the copyright claim was questionable at best—was Schwanitz asserting copyright in the 3D design file, the image, or the structure itself?—Thingiverse nevertheless complied with the notice and removed the offending designs.

The Penrose triangle

“For better or worse,” Thingiverse founder Bre Pettis wrote on the site’s blog, “we’ve hit a milestone in the history of digital fabrication.”

A few days later, after coming under Internet scrutiny, Schwanitz rescinded his DMCA complaint and promised to release his shape into the public domain. But the damage was done. As Cory Doctorow eloquently put it, Schwanitz “became the inventor of something much more substantial than a 3D Penrose Triangle—he became the inventor of copyright threats over open 3D repositories.”

Schwanitz’s DMCA takedown notice was indeed a milestone for Thingiverse, which had operated free of any public accusations of patent or copyright infringement since it was founded. As a result of the incident, Thingiverse updated its legal page with DMCA language. But the complaint spoke to something broader, and far more significant for 3D printing as a new technology: Schwanitz’s takedown was the first shot in the next theater of the intellectual property (IP) wars. It was also the first formal attempt to apply copyright law to regulate content on a 3D printing repository of any kind.

While Ars readers have enjoyed great coverage of 3D printing-related topics, the general public still isn't familiar with the technology. Indeed, many of my legal colleagues were baffled as I explained how any physical object can now be scanned to generate a CAD (computer-aided design) file and later recreated—anywhere, anytime—using a 3D printer. All agreed that such a technology would have unprecedented implications for intellectual property law (and vice versa).

As with all technology, as 3D printing becomes simpler, more powerful, and more common, it will catch the eyes of more lawyers, regulators, and, of course, individual designers like Ulrich Schwanitz. And that will mean conflict. Here's a primer on some of the key legal issues that will frame the upcoming battles.

A disruptor like no other

Though still in its infancy, personal 3D printing technology already shows the same disruptive potential as the original printing press. Just as moveable type spread across Europe and democratized knowledge, the proliferation of 3D printers eventually promises to democratize creation. Broken dishwasher part? Download the relevant CAD file and print it out in plastic. While Amazon made trips to the store seem dated, 3D printing will make ordering (some) things online feel positively quaint.

Most people think of “printing” as a strictly 2D affair, but 3D printing works much like its 2D cousin, the inkjet printer, though it builds up a succession of layers to form its objects. Such printers can cost between thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars (a build-it-yourself model, the RepRap, can be assembled for a few hundred bucks).

The fabrication process begins with a 3D design file, created from scratch or drawn from a 3D scan of an object. Software deconstructs the 3D image into a series of 2D cross-sectional slices and the printer deposits layers of material, typically plastic or metal, one atop the other in the shape of each 2D slice. The layers are fused, and the fabricated object is treated and hardened.

Because 3D printers don’t need to carve material from preexisting blocks (as in sculpture), the process allows for elaborate and visuallystunning shapes to be created in a matter of hours with no manual labor. The size of these shapes is only limited by the size of the printer making them—heck, combine a big enough one with a space probe and you’re halfway to Von Neumann technology.

All that is well and good, but as Thingiverse recently discovered, any technology that allows users to digitize and replicate objects is bound to have some IP implications. And it’s precisely because of its potential as a game changer that 3D printing presents challenging legal questions best addressed before the technology becomes ubiquitous.

Gutenberg didn’t have to worry much about intellectual property laws, but he had to compete with an array of other legal and societal challenges to his invention. Eventually copyright, a novel concept in the 16th century, emerged as a means to regulate Gutenberg’s disruptive technology. 3D printing is especially intriguing from a legal perspective because, like the printing press, it has broad implications for the existing legal regime (including all three areas of IP - patent, copyright, and trademark), but it also presents issues that may warrant broad changes to existing law—or require new laws entirely.

So what are rightsholders to do? For starters, they should be careful of heavy-handed enforcement against sites like Thingiverse, which lack the resources to fight big legal battles on a shoestring budget. But rightsholders will want to be vigilant, particularly against “money model” sites that openly seek to commercialize the IP of others. Allowing those sites to develop, and perhaps even flourish alongside revolutionary and increasingly widespread technology, may instill a belief that their “stuff” ought to be much cheaper than it is.

So, rightsholders should avoid attacking free sites, but be vigilant against non-free sites. And by so doing, prevent the belief that their stuff is worth less that it ought to be.

I don't see how allowing free sites to do whatever they want does anything but devalue intellectual property.

Basically, what you're telling me is that the era when people could dream of supporting themselves on their creative output is fast coming to a close. And none of them should do anything that will actually prevent this from happening.

I guess we should all be looking for desk jobs. Too bad there aren't enough of those to go around...

I used to jokingly respond to the 'you wouldn't steal a car' copyright propaganda with "I wouldn't steal one, but if a mate said he could burn me a copy of his car I'd take him up on it". Seems less of a joke now.

This article has actually gotten me pretty interested in the technology. It's been around for a while but it seemed like it was always well out of the reach of an average consumer. How much have they moved into the consumer-level space now? What are the different types available, what are their drawbacks and benefits, etc. Are there any that can for example apply paint to the surface of a finished print? I'd love to see a site like Ars put together a detailed look at what's out there (hint hint).

This article is a three page expose on why we should give up on the notion of IP. It won't be too long before you cannot invent ANYTHING. Everything will be trademarked, copyrighted, or patented, and then what. Am I going to have to get a license because some widget in something I came up with on my own resembles something someone else has a design patent on?

I don't know. I know that some balance has to be struck, but I think as a world we'd probably be better off letting these technologies disrupt the existing order, and let the chips fall where they may, than prop up a four hundred year old regime that was never designed to handle the issues that 3D printing will bring.

If we do keep IP around as a viable concept, we need to do something about the time limits. These laws were originally put in place to stimulate creativity, and have instead become impediments. I would be far less concerned if copyright had some sort of reasonable limit, it doesn't. Don't get me started on patents. If they allowed a patent for a swing to get through despite being both obvious and having centuries of prior art, I don't have any faith in their ability to be an honest broker in the upcoming IP storm.

This article has actually gotten me pretty interested in the technology. It's been around for a while but it seemed like it was always well out of the reach of an average consumer. How much have they moved into the consumer-level space now? What are the different types available, what are their drawbacks and benefits, etc. Are there any that can for example apply paint to the surface of a finished print? I'd love to see a site like Ars put together a detailed look at what's out there (hint hint).

The main build-from-a-kit hobbyist 3D printers are the MakerBot Thing-o-Matic and the RepRap Mendel/Prusa. For colour you generally use different colours of ABS plastic filament, or manually paint stuff afterwards.

So what are rightsholders to do? For starters, they should be careful of heavy-handed enforcement against sites like Thingiverse, which lack the resources to fight big legal battles on a shoestring budget. But rightsholders will want to be vigilant, particularly against “money model” sites that openly seek to commercialize the IP of others. Allowing those sites to develop, and perhaps even flourish alongside revolutionary and increasingly widespread technology, may instill a belief that their “stuff” ought to be much cheaper than it is.

So, rightsholders should avoid attacking free sites, but be vigilant against non-free sites. And by so doing, prevent the belief that their stuff is worth less that it ought to be.

I don't see how allowing free sites to do whatever they want does anything but devalue intellectual property.

Basically, what you're telling me is that the era when people could dream of supporting themselves on their creative output is fast coming to a close. And none of them should do anything that will actually prevent this from happening.

I guess we should all be looking for desk jobs. Too bad there aren't enough of those to go around...

I'd argue that it's already come. Look at the patent wars in the mobile space. Or patent and copyright trolls like RightHaven.

Also, we might want to explore what kind of benefit protecting IP actually has as we go forward and technologies like this become common place. Are the 'rights' of someone who may or may not have invented something more important than the gains all mankind could make if this technology became viable? It's honestly something that needs to be addressed. Because I'm not sure about the answer honestly.

I really wish people would stop trying to convince others that copyrights were instituted as a means of "fostering creativity and innovation". Seriously, copyrights are a means of achieving monetary rewards for original thought. Sadly, much like the concept that incorporating allows you to hide behind a fake entity and do pretty much anything you like without consequence, copyright has become more a means to stifle others innovation, and make money indefinitely on the same old thing. Why on earth anyone honest could ever attempt to make a case for copyright to last longer than 20 years is beyond me.

People should be rewarded for original ideas, but they should also remember the phrase, "what have you done for me lately?" One original thought shouldn't be able to create an empire that lasts indefinitely.

This article is a three page expose on why we should give up on the notion of IP. It won't be too long before you cannot invent ANYTHING. Everything will be trademarked, copyrighted, or patented, and then what. Am I going to have to get a license because some widget in something I came up with on my own resembles something someone else has a design patent on?

I don't know. I know that some balance has to be struck, but I think as a world we'd probably be better off letting these technologies disrupt the existing order, and let the chips fall where they may, than prop up a four hundred year old regime that was never designed to handle the issues that 3D printing will bring.

If we do keep IP around as a viable concept, we need to do something about the time limits. These laws were originally put in place to stimulate creativity, and have instead become impediments. I would be far less concerned if copyright had some sort of reasonable limit, it doesn't. Don't get me started on patents. If they allowed a patent for a swing to get through despite being both obvious and having centuries of prior art, I don't have any faith in their ability to be an honest broker in the upcoming IP storm.

Except if you make actually creating IP worthless (because anyone can copy it freely), then what is the motivation for someone to professionally create interesting IP? Eventually everyone will be copying, but who will they copy?

I agree the law needs reform and we need perhaps a new way of thinking, but there is NO way we don't need to protect the ideas people come up with. Specialization, and the benefits of having people make professions of tasks is the thing that made us successful as a civilization. If we allow people to treat ideas as basically worthless, fewer people will make a living of thinking up new things.People will of course continue to make art and come up with cool shit as a hobby, but while some really interesting stuff comes from hobbyists, no polished products do.

I also fail to see how 3D printers are really mixing things up. CAD and 3D files have always been copyrighted work, just as a picture, a text or a piece of graphic design is. Why wouldn't it be?Turbosquid and the like have been selling 3D CAD ressources for ages, and of COURSE those are copyrighted. Whether you print the resulting 3D or just use it in a visualization project makes no difference that I can see.Sure the former has farther reaching consequences since copyright infringement can now come to the physical world, but legally it's not much different. I don't want anyone copying the 3D work I've done for their own visualizations and animations anymore than I want anyone printing physical copies and selling. In either case they are taking my work without my consent.

In the case of Erik De Bruijn, he naturally has a copyright on the 3D model he created, and might have had copyright on the shape in general. Of course, he didn't invent the Penrose Triangle, so only the specific 3D work he did could probably be copyrighted. I'm not sure (also IANAL) whether the method he used in the video for creating it (i.e. the specific way he built his 3D model) is really specific enough that it could be copyrighted. It's more akin to me duplicating an M.C. Escher drawing by hand and claiming copyright of it.

I guess the question is, what everyday application of 3D printing would require your average Joe to possess such a printer (assuming economies of scale make it viable and prices come down)?

Bruce Sterling imagined in the short story "Kiosk" that it might start with toys sold at kiosks for pocket change to schoolkids. Given the current merchandising that goes on even with "educational" TV shows {insert somewhat recent Ars Technica article about this here} this doesn't seem too far-fetched.

This article has actually gotten me pretty interested in the technology. It's been around for a while but it seemed like it was always well out of the reach of an average consumer. How much have they moved into the consumer-level space now? What are the different types available, what are their drawbacks and benefits, etc. Are there any that can for example apply paint to the surface of a finished print? I'd love to see a site like Ars put together a detailed look at what's out there (hint hint).

The main build-from-a-kit hobbyist 3D printers are the MakerBot Thing-o-Matic and the RepRap Mendel/Prusa. For colour you generally use different colours of ABS plastic filament, or manually paint stuff afterwards.

Sigh. Replicators in Star Trek is coming and we have to think about legal ramifications first.

My thoughts as well..

It is time for us to let go of our archaic socioeconomic ways and laws. We have the technology right now to make unlimited renewable energy. We can feed everyone on the planet without the use of pesticides or soil using aeroponics. The big thing holding us back is our reliance on money, artificial scarcity or withholding of certain resources by corporations. The notion of working for a wage to continue our cyclical consumption, while wasting our real finite resources is insanity. Unfortunately, everyone is brainwashed from birth to continue this destructive path.

Might I point out that there are more countries then the USA? They even have different laws in some of those! Silly idea of course (both the other countries and the different laws), and unknown to most US citizens. But still.... viewing the way data can actually get across borders..... stating that "direct patent infringement is a strict liability offense, i.e., it occurs whether or not the infringer knows of the existence of the patent, and there is no “fair use” exception as there is in copyright law" is not necesairy true for most people (you know there are in fact more people outside the USA then inside?).

The thing is, this is nothing new. Trademark and Patent Holders are already in a huge fight against asian copy-cats. I just saw a report on TV about some trade show in europe, where a horde of lawyers and custom officials went through, confiscating merchandise at every second booth. And it wasn't gucci-bags or rolex-watches. It was trademarked kitchen bowls and pencil sharpeners.

Reality is, trademark and patent holders are way to busy fighting off cheap asian copiers to care for a few home based 3d printers. At least for now.

But rest assured, they do have the legal apparatus in place to go after them if need arises.

This article is a three page expose on why we should give up on the notion of IP. It won't be too long before you cannot invent ANYTHING. Everything will be trademarked, copyrighted, or patented, and then what. Am I going to have to get a license because some widget in something I came up with on my own resembles something someone else has a design patent on?

Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office (1899) is famously misquoted as saying "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Although it's a misquote (with an interesting history), the notion that we're reaching an inventive or creative saturation point has persisted. But it's total nonsense.

Creativity and invention is both a linear and exponential process. Certain discoveries (and creations) take on a life and universe of their own. Think where we'd be without the CRT or LCD or OLED or internet - all of those were unforeseen technologies that spawned off little, localized technology renaissances that have benefited both commerce and the public. It's just short-sighted to think all of that can be gobbled up will be.

Copyright is pesky, because it last so long. None of us can legally remix a Britney Spears song and sell it for our lifetimes. Heck, even our children won't be able to do that. But copyright is facing very powerful stresses and I think we'll see the law change, or ease, to further accommodate legitimate (non-commercial) fair use.

Weakening patent law is another thing entirely. The term of a patent is pretty short - 20 years or so - and it's not easy to get a patent (can cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases). There are a ton of minefields in enforcing your patent - no easy task - and a lot of people simply prefer the Apple model (patent what you can, make the rest secret sauce). So we'll see.

This article seems to take the view that 3D printing will present some tricky issues that the law will have to bend around to accommodate or break in the process. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is, but the technology can't get here fast enough.

In an age when you can torrent just about any copyrighted work you want from millions of people around the world in a matter of minutes, do you guys really think rights holders are going to go after a few geeks making plastic models? they have bigger fish to fry.

i also really don't understand why copyright should apply to objects printed, but not manufactured. so you can theoretically in the future "print" a copy of a chevy aveo part and that is "copyright" infringement, but if you manufacture the same car door, it's "patent" infringement. I guess I'm lost at why the ability to "print" an object should be distinguished from the ability to manufacture it.

So what are rightsholders to do? For starters, they should be careful of heavy-handed enforcement against sites like Thingiverse, which lack the resources to fight big legal battles on a shoestring budget. But rightsholders will want to be vigilant, particularly against “money model” sites that openly seek to commercialize the IP of others. Allowing those sites to develop, and perhaps even flourish alongside revolutionary and increasingly widespread technology, may instill a belief that their “stuff” ought to be much cheaper than it is.

So, rightsholders should avoid attacking free sites, but be vigilant against non-free sites. And by so doing, prevent the belief that their stuff is worth less that it ought to be.

I don't see how allowing free sites to do whatever they want does anything but devalue intellectual property.

Basically, what you're telling me is that the era when people could dream of supporting themselves on their creative output is fast coming to a close. And none of them should do anything that will actually prevent this from happening.

I guess we should all be looking for desk jobs. Too bad there aren't enough of those to go around...

So you propose we should ban hoobyist 3d printers out of piracy concerns, or demand RadioShack solder a TPM module with 256MiB RAM (and an encrypted DSP) on every board that has a something better than 8259A PIC on it... because it might be a platform for infringing ASM code Funniest thing, there actually WAS SUCH A (RETARDED) PROPSAL a few years ago. I can't remember the details exactly but it was something along the lines of "Closing the Analog Hole."

So hobbyist devs have to stop their "immoral, sinful and unauthorized" practices because some rich wanker can't sleep at night at the thought of possible piracy.

Peter Hanna <exhibit B> wrote:

But Valve, Lucas, and the publishers of the Settlers of Catan series may be taking some risk by letting these designs slide. While the 3D designs hosted on Thingiverse seem directed toward a very small hobbyist community, if companies fail to police their IP rights, what would stop an overseas manufacturer from downloading the designs, mass producing knockoffs, and selling them through Amazon, eBay, or another storefront entirely? Of course, the designs could be procured elsewhere, but courts often look unfavorably on parties that sit on their rights.

On a very serious note, WHAT'S STOPPING THEM RIGHT NOW!? Sure, most replicas still come off as cheap, but the serious commercial pirates are getting there. And those should be the target, not some pimply basement nerd putting Darth Vader™'s head on Chewbacca™'s body and bragging on 4chan about it...

<Exhibit A> and <Exhibit B>And this my friends is yellow journalism at its finest. MOST Ars articles avoid having two statements that almost contradict each other, and present both sides of technology in as an objective manner as possible, but not this one.

[sarcasm]So copying a set of bits was classified as theft, now simply re-imagining a set of bits will be theft. In 20 years we'll need to pay licenses for simply thinking about a franchise.[/sarcasm]

On a more serious (but still amusing note) I propose to no longer letting our children watch anything else except public domain cartoons and films. Barring those, we make our own. See the recent blender projects, they make open source movies (IANAL and GPL is not exactly PUBLIC DOMAIN, but it's just as risk free from million U$D lawsuits).

the problem is never going to be literal copying - that's covered under other causes of action anyway, and a judge or jury can be trusted to put the kybosh on it quickly.

the problem is where a copyright holder builds something and then tries to capture more than their original concept. or thinks that their functional concept is copyrightable, when function is never copyrightable.

regardless, 3d replication is just a tool to do something that's been done for ages - there's absolutely no need or incentive to extend or make new law to cover design templates as well as the original copyrighted item. you've got copyright, design patents, and utility patents, and that's plenty.

In an age when you can torrent just about any copyrighted work you want from millions of people around the world in a matter of minutes, do you guys really think rights holders are going to go after a few geeks making plastic models? they have bigger fish to fry.

i also really don't understand why copyright should apply to objects printed, but not manufactured. so you can theoretically in the future "print" a copy of a chevy aveo part and that is "copyright" infringement, but if you manufacture the same car door, it's "patent" infringement. I guess I'm lost at why the ability to "print" an object should be distinguished from the ability to manufacture it.

Fair point, for now it's geeks, but what about when everyone has one of these things and people are torrenting actual things? I think a car part is not an expression of creativity, so no copyright - and it likely isn't patented. But if it was patented no difference bw printing and manufacturing. Same general legal issues apply. I think the point is 3d printing will make these issues as potentially common as mp3 copying (remember, copying audio video pre-digital was a pain in the ass).

What I want to know is whether people are already torrenting 3d files, or are they only available on Thingiverse and similar sites?

Offer wondered what the legal implications of using a machine like that to print a key are.

I don't know about the legal implications, but the social implication is that technology is "evolving" faster than we are as a species.

[sarcasm]On another note, anyone know what max percent (%) of a mathematical topology is considered "fair use"? I was thinking on NOT buying a 10 mil $ supercomputer and instead make a DB of topologies for use in general engineering [/sarcasm]

Except if you make actually creating IP worthless (because anyone can copy it freely), then what is the motivation for someone to professionally create interesting IP? Eventually everyone will be copying, but who will they copy?

Maybe they can be hired to perform work, pretty much like every other profession works?

Offer wondered what the legal implications of using a machine like that to print a key are.

No different to cutting a key I would think.

This is a massive change in the way we manufacture stuff, going from subtractive (machining from blanks) to additive manufacturing (build up with DMLS), but the legal issue remain the same. The big difference is the low start up costs which make one off productions possible, and thus home printers attractive.

I fail to see the difference between taking a photograph of a new item I purchased and sending it to a friend, and taking a 3D scan and doing the same. Is this article saying it is copyright infringement or patent theft to photograph items I own. I think this whole thing is a lost cause. Are we going to have people coming into our homes inspecting our items to see if they were fabricated on premises. Someone is just going to have to figure out a new way to make money.

In an age when you can torrent just about any copyrighted work you want from millions of people around the world in a matter of minutes, do you guys really think rights holders are going to go after a few geeks making plastic models? they have bigger fish to fry.

i also really don't understand why copyright should apply to objects printed, but not manufactured. so you can theoretically in the future "print" a copy of a chevy aveo part and that is "copyright" infringement, but if you manufacture the same car door, it's "patent" infringement. I guess I'm lost at why the ability to "print" an object should be distinguished from the ability to manufacture it.

Fair point, for now it's geeks, but what about when everyone has one of these things and people are torrenting actual things? I think a car part is not an expression of creativity, so no copyright - and it likely isn't patented. But if it was patented no difference bw printing and manufacturing. Same general legal issues apply. I think the point is 3d printing will make these issues as potentially common as mp3 copying (remember, copying audio video pre-digital was a pain in the ass).

What I want to know is whether people are already torrenting 3d files, or are they only available on Thingiverse and similar sites?

I really don't see these machines ever becoming a commonplace household appliance. At least at the level to make steel parts. Would you trust your life to a car part printed from you home PC? Actual car parts get QA'd. What is the printer supposed to have a radiography machine built in for that too? If I was warhammer 40K, i would be worried. Otherwise, I'll ride the PanAm spaceship to the Hilton space station :-D

Except if you make actually creating IP worthless (because anyone can copy it freely), then what is the motivation for someone to professionally create interesting IP? Eventually everyone will be copying, but who will they copy?

Currently, IP controls stifle professional creation. Whole industries have been popping up overnight with their sole product being to sue people using commonplace ideas.

Things like web browsers, mp3 players, GUI's are being patented en-masse by companies with no intention to create, using vague wording in their patent to ensure that they capture as many creative processes as possible without lifting a finger. Then, when someone creative and brilliant comes up with a way to make it all work, they swoop in and claim a berjillion dollars for another person's hard work. Or they wait a while for it to make money, eg eBay.

The linked chair and teasets are model files for rendering - for folks to plug into their raytracer scene or something? Obj, Max, etx

Can the 3d printer (or somewhere in the software stack) take an arbitrary triangle mesh and reduce that to a series of '2d' layers to deposit upon on another? Or does one use the AutoCad version and some exporter plugins or something?

like with copyright the laws need to be relaxed, if means off production are a lot lower than what they used to be, we should encourage the world to take advantage of it, innovation should be protected but not on unreasonable terms as what we have with copyright currently.

But well... this is a dream, right? Yes... it will take a lot more time until future generations of decisionmakers are born without 1960's prejudices for such tech to be allowed to flourish... until that happens I may be long gone, but eventually reason will prevail.

Innovation won't stop just because IP laws go away. It probably won't even deviate from its exponential growth by any significant margin. Worst case scenario is that it levels off and remains around where it is today, which is orders of magnitude higher than it was 10 years ago.

We're already at a point with IP laws where almost half the world's population (arguably more than half) simply ignores it when it's inconvenient. If the prospect of a desk job offends you so grievously, it's worth pointing out that the social aspect of leaving your house to meet with others to see a public performance is never going away. Keep in mind that some of the greatest works in history were produced by men (and women) who received nearly no recognition and money for it in their lifetimes.

I, like the vast majority of people in the world, do not own a printer — 2D or otherwise. However as a professional photographer I do actually print quite a lot. It's just that I upload my photos to a commercial printer, and they print them out for me. A commercial printer is cheaper and higher quality than I could achieve at home; in fact each complete print costs less than the blank 'photo' paper for a home printer would cost... and that's before factoring in the cost of ink for the home printer, and depreciation.

Similarly, when 3D printers become common I expect that there will be many commercial 3D printer companies. Their volume means they'll be cheaper printing at home, and they'll be able to afford the best machines so quality will be higher and printing time will be quicker. It is quite conceivable that most 3D printing is done at a commercial printer.

This would mean that IP protection of 3D prints would only be as good as the printing companies make it. When I print a 2D photo now, I agree to some longwinded agreement that confirms my copyright ownership. But how would anyone know if I do actually have copyright? A handful of professional photo labs might have staff who would recognise egregious breaches, such as printing a famous artwork. But most photo printing happens in tiny labs, supermarkets and booths in department stores. I doubt that the staff in such places — often young and untrained — could identify a copyright breach even one in a hundred times.

When 3D printers start popping up in shops down the road from you, I bet that none of the staff there will be able to enforce copyright either.